Hi y'all,

I am undoubtedly sure this question has been asked and answered multiple times, but I am not sure how to search it while stuck at home. I know the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is concise and has led to a lot of interpretations. I was hoping someone might be able to shed some light on the original intentions. My knowledge of the founding and the Revolutionary War was that the founders feared a strong central government which would be able to rule over the states leading to tyranny essentially. Allowing for a well regulated Militia I, from my knowledge, assume this was about the minutemen and realising, the power this had to stop an invading force. You would essentially be able to muster up troops quickly if you the citizens of the country were armed. This would also allow for each state to be able to defend themselves without the need of an Army. I assume this is also why the U.S. Army isn't allowed to operate on U.S. soil. Based on the time it feels like a radical and new solution to defence and a way to prevent too much power being given to the federal government. My knowledge of Constitutional law is limited, and my history of the United States is what I learned in school and any documentary I have seen. I am piecing together my knowledge and coming up with a conclusion, that needs more research. I spent some time attempting to look into the origin of the amendment. Still, given the 2nd amendment's political nature, I have had difficulty in finding websites that are without bias and offer a deeper dive. I am trying to learn more about the context within why this amendment was put into place, and not what the courts decided later. I feel like our modern interpretation of the amendment has likely been warped and changed given to fact is is incredibly vague and leaves a lot to interpretation.